GREENWASHING: WHEN ADVERTISING PRETENDS TO BE SUSTAINABLE

ГРИНВОШИНГ: КОГДА РЕКЛАМА ПРИТВОРЯЕТСЯ УСТОЙЧИВОЙ

Кахриманова Арина Мурадовна

студент, Институт общественных наук, Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации,

РФ, г. Москва

Трофимова Ирина Васильевна

научный руководитель, старший преподаватель Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации,

РФ, г. Москва

ABSTRACT

The article examines the phenomenon of greenwashing as a form of unfair advertising that creates the illusion of an eco-friendly brand. The reasons, mechanisms and consequences of such an advertising strategy of companies are considered using the example of well-known brands. Attention is paid to the impact of greenwashing on consumer confidence and the development of corporate sustainability.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В статье рассматривается феномен гринвошинга как формы недобросовестной рекламы, создающей иллюзию экологичности бренда. На примере известных торговых марок анализируются причины, механизмы и последствия применения компаниями подобной рекламной стратегии. Особое внимание уделяется влиянию гринвошинга на доверие потребителей и развитие корпоративной устойчивости.

Keywords: green deception, greenwashing, sustainable development, environmental advertising, corporate ethics, marketing communications.

Ключевые слова: «Зеленый» обман, гринвошинг, устойчивое развитие, экологическая реклама, корпоративная этика, маркетинговые коммуникации.

The modern consumer lives in an era when environmental responsibility is becoming the new norm. People choose products that do not harm the environment, are willing to overpay for recycled packaging and support companies that declare “green” initiatives. This opens up not only opportunities for businesses, but also temptations. After all, it is much easier to create the illusion of environmental friendliness than to really rebuild production. This is how the phenomenon of green deception arises.

The term greenwashing appeared in the 1980s, but it only really came into use in the 21st century, an era when sustainability became a buzzword. The concept itself is derived from the English words green and whitewashing. It describes situations where a company creates a false impression of environmental responsibility, although the actual actions are minimal or absent altogether.

According to the definition of the environmental organization NRDC, greenwashing is “the dissemination of false or misleading information about the environmental benefits of a product or company policy”. In other words, the business relies not on real changes, but on the "right" image in order to gain the trust of the audience.

In recent years, the scale of the phenomenon has become so great that experts even classify its varieties. One of the most common types is a false statement, when a manufacturer claims that his product is biodegradable or carbon neutral, without evidence. Another type is partial truth, when a company highlights individual achievements while keeping silent about the rest of the harm. There is also a visual deception: the use of green shades, images of nature, symbols of leaves and water – all this creates an emotional illusion of environmental friendliness.

These techniques often operate on a subconscious level. It is enough for a person to see a package with a green leaf or an eco-label to believe that the product is harmless. But behind the external "eco-decor" there may be an ordinary marketing mask, behind which there is no real action.

The problem is that the green deception undermines the credibility of the very concept of sustainability. If a client is disappointed to learn that the “green” advertising turned out to be fiction, he begins to doubt the sincerity of other companies. Thus, damage is inflicted not only on an individual brand, but also on the whole idea of environmental responsibility.

Today, greenwashing covers a wide variety of industries, from fashion and cosmetics to energy, transportation, and even IT. Many companies have realized that environmental friendliness sells. Research shows that 70% of buyers are willing to overpay for “pure” brands. And it is this trend that has become fertile ground for the emergence of false sustainability strategies.

For example, in 2019, H&M, one of the largest representatives of the fast fashion industry, introduced the Conscious Collection line, positioned as “sustainable”. The advertisement claimed that the clothes were made from recycled and organic materials. However, the Norwegian Consumer Protection Agency found that the proportion of such materials did not exceed 10%, and production remained energy-intensive and polluting. H&M's “sustainable ratings” system turned out to be opaque and lacked external certification. So the fashion giant, wanting to look “green”, only created the illusion of caring about the environment [1].

A similar story happened with the manufacturer of Keurig coffee machines. The company loudly announced that its capsules are now “fully recyclable”. In fact, it turned out that most of the processing plants did not accept the type of plastic used. In 2022, Canadian authorities fined Keurig $3 million for false environmental claims. This case has shown that even small packaging details can become a symbol of global marketing dishonesty [2].

When oil and gas giant BP announced that it was becoming a company Beyond Petroleum, it caused a storm of approval. The new green logo, the slogans about clean energy – everything looked convincing. However, analysts soon found out that more than 96% of BP's investments were still directed to oil and gas production. The former carbon dependence was hidden under the green sun of the new brand. So the bright slogan turned into an example of the largest substitution of meaning in corporate history [3].

In order to show concern for the oceans, McDonald's replaced plastic straws with paper ones in 2019. The step seemed to be a symbol of change, but later it turned out that the new straws are not recycled and are made from less sustainable materials. Experts called this action a “cosmetic gesture” that does not affect the actual reduction of waste. The example of McDonald's has shown how even a sincere desire to improve one's image can turn into a PR trap with no real benefit [5].

The most dramatic example of green deception was the Volkswagen scandal with “clean diesels”. The company claimed that its cars comply with environmental regulations, but in fact the software underestimated emissions during testing. In reality, the level of pollution exceeded the permissible values by dozens of times. This case has exposed how dangerous greenwashing can be when it becomes part of a corporate strategy rather than just a marketing mistake [6].

Even a company with a stable reputation, such as IKEA, has not escaped the accusations. An investigation by Earthsight revealed that some of the furniture was made from wood extracted in violation of environmental regulations in Eastern Europe. Despite the availability of FSC certificates, it turned out that the control system has gaps. This case reminded us that sustainability is not just the availability of documents, but the constant verification of all links in the supply chain [4].

All these stories have one thing in common: the desire of companies to look “green” is more important than actually being them. Greenwashing is not only a lie, but also a reflection of a business' fear of real change. True sustainability requires investment, time and transparency, whereas imitation gives a quick PR effect.

The paradox is that, in an effort to gain trust, companies that are caught cheating lose it forever. Reputational losses turn out to be much more serious than short-term gains. Moreover, consumer frustration undermines those manufacturers who actually implement sustainable technologies.

However, the situation is gradually changing. In Europe and the UK, laws already apply that restrict the use of terms like eco, green, or sustainable without documentation. The Green Claims Code in the UK requires that every environmental application has real data and independent certification.

In response, many corporations create ESG communications departments (Environmental, Social, Governance), conduct independent audits, and publish sustainability reports. This trend shows that businesses realize that in the era of information transparency, it becomes impossible to hide the truth.

However, the main protection against green deception is not only the laws, but also the critical thinking of society. Consumers learn to ask questions, read formulations, check sources, and demand evidence. An informed buyer is the best controller of corporate ethics.

The advertising of the future should not only be beautiful, but honest. True environmental friendliness is expressed not in the green palette of the banner, but in reducing emissions, switching to renewable energy, transparent logistics and responsibility to local communities.

That is why greenwashing can be considered as a transitional stage – a painful but necessary stage of growth. It exposes the imperfections of the current system and pushes society to seek genuine sustainability.

Thus, summing up the results of the study, we can conclude that the phenomenon of green deception resembles a mirror: it reflects not only the cunning of companies, but also the gullibility of society, ready to believe beautiful slogans. However, every year this illusion becomes more difficult to maintain. The examples of H&M, BP, McDonald's, Keurig, Volkswagen and IKEA have become business lessons and have shown that reputation is a resource that cannot be bought by advertising. The future of the corporate world belongs to those who do not pretend to be eco-friendly but really change their approaches to production and communication. And then the words “eco-friendly” will finally gain real meaning – as a sign of true responsibility to the planet.

References:

1. 10 Companies Called Out For Greenwashing. URL: https://earth.org/greenwashing-companies-corporations (date of access 01.11.2025).
2. Behind Keurig's bid to make coffee pods without plastic. URL: https://trellis.net/article/behind-keurigs-bid-to-make-coffee-pods-without-plastic/ (date of access 01.11.2025).
3. BP: Beyond Petroleum Or Broken Promise? URL: https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/bp-beyond-petroleum-or-broken-promise/
4. McDonald's paper straws cannot be recycled. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49234054 (date of access 01.11.2025).
5. Volkswagen: The scandal explained. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772 (date of access 01.11.2025).